The European Court of Human Rights just issued a landmark verdict. A group of women, mostly in their 70s, argued that their age and gender made them especially vulnerable to the effects climate heating. Previously, two similar cases (one filed by six Portuguese youth, and one by a former French mayor) were dismissed by the judges.
But this time, they won. The court decided that Switzerland’s efforts to meet its emission targets were woefully inadequate. It’s a striking victory — the first time a court has ever ruled on global warming.
“We still can’t really believe it. We keep asking our lawyers, ‘is that right?’ Rosemarie Wydler-Walti, one of the leaders of the Swiss women, told Reuters news agency. “And they tell us it’s the most you could have had. The biggest victory possible.”
The climate seniors
The group of Swiss women, called KlimaSeniorinnen (Senior Women for Climate), said the country’s response to climate change is violating their rights. Basically, it gets so hot during heatwaves that they can’t leave their houses. They also argued that the Swiss government doesn’t do enough to reduce its own emissions and ensure that the rights of its citizens are respected.
The court ruled 16 to 1 that the women were right. The court found “critical gaps” in how the country responded to climate heating. Basically, Switzerland isn’t doing enough, and it’s not quantifying what it’s doing to counteract climate change.
“There had been critical gaps in the process of putting in place the relevant domestic regulatory framework, including a failure by the Swiss authorities to quantify, through a carbon budget or otherwise, national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limitations,” according to the judgment.
The verdict was seen as a complete victory of the KlimaSeniorinnen.
“While we do not have all the details yet — this decision is historic!” writes Sébastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).
“The Court has found the petition admissible and finds a violation of the rights of the Klimaseniorinnen both on process and on the substance!”
A landmark victory
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), also known as the Strasbourg Court, hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights. The court has jurisdiction over most of the countries in Europe, except for Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Vatican City. International law scholars consider the court to be the most effective international human rights court in the world.
But the ruling didn’t happen overnight.
The case was first brought up nine years ago by the group comprising over 2,000 women. It first went through Swiss courts and was ultimately defeated in the country’s Federal Court — the highest court of Switzerland. Then, it escalated to the European court, where it spent 7 years before reaching a conclusion.
But it was worth the wait. Elisabeth Stern, 76, told BBC News that she’s fully aware of how the climate has changed since she was a child growing up on a farm.
“Some of us are just made that way. We are not made to sit in a rocking chair and knit.”
“We know statistically that in 10 years we will be gone. So, whatever we do now, we are not doing for ourselves, but for the sake of our children and our children’s children,” she added.
A case for climate action
The case wasn’t a simple one. There’s no specific mention of climate change in the European Convention of Human Rights. But the court rules on climate change when it affects other rights of people. In this case, the ruling was based on Article 8 — the right to respect for private and family life. Essentially, states have the obligation to maintain a “healthy environment,” which can tie into climate change.
The ruling sent ripples through Switzerland. President Viola Amherd said she needs to read the judgement in more detail before commenting. But the ruling is expected to bring significant change in the country. The right-wing Swiss People’s Party condemned the ruling, calling it a scandal. Reactions from the other political corners, however, were more positive.
Notably, the verdict affects more than just Switzerland. Corina Heri, a postdoc researcher in human rights law and climate change, posted on X (former Twitter) that this basically pulls climate change into the courts.
“The Court seems to have spelled out a clear way forward for climate cases — and confirmed that climate change is very much an ECHR issue,” she writes from Strasbourg.
“This ruling in the Klimaseniorinnen case will have implications way behind Switzerland!” Duyck also tweeted.
Switzerland isn’t unique. All European states have the same obligations as Switzerland under Article 8. In fact, six other climate cases that had been adjourned by the European Court of Human Rights will now be resumed in light of today’s decision. These include cases against Austria, Italy, Germany, and Norway.
Setting precedent
Although courts elsewhere aren’t bound by this European court, this sets an important precedent. Climate cases are becoming more and more common across the world and often face significant legal hurdles. However, this landmark ruling may provide a blueprint for how similar cases can be approached in the future, leveraging human rights law as a foundation for environmental justice.
The implications of this verdict are far-reaching. It not only paves the way for future climate litigation but also emphasizes the need for substantive action on climate change. Governments should reevaluate their environmental policies and strategies to ensure they are in line with their human rights obligations. This could mean stricter emissions targets, more robust climate adaptation measures, and greater accountability for failing to protect the rights of vulnerable populations.
There are currently over 2,180 climate lawsuits ongoing, according to a United Nations and Columbia University report published earlier this year.
Thanks for your feedback!